 |
| Comments on "Sunday Open Thread " |
|
 | Sunday, January 4, 2009 at 3:20:50 mst
Comment ID: #1
Name: JMartin
E-mail: jemartinsen(at)gmail.com
Do anyone know how likely it is that Binyamin Netanyahu, of the Likud, will become the next Prime Minister of Israel? He seems to have very solid positions.
"In a 8 March 2007 interview with CNN, he asserted that there is only one difference between Nazi Germany and the Islamic Republic of Iran, namely that the first entered a worldwide conflict and then sought atomic weapons, while the latter is first seeking atomic weapons and, once it has them, will then start a world war."
|
| Sunday, January 4, 2009 at 3:47:40 mst
Comment ID: #2
Name: Sajid
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28476798
Is anybody else really scared that the solution to the financial crisis seems to be lowering interest rates? Doesn't this mean that the government is making money even cheaper--money that it does not possess in the first place? And isn't this the opposite of what should happen since scarce money means interest rates should be HIGHER not LOWER? I vote we should lower the minimum wage. The way out is old fashioned saving money and working harder.
|
| Sunday, January 4, 2009 at 5:43:24 mst
Comment ID: #3
Name: Michael Labeit
E-mail: logician169(at)yahoo.com
URL: http://unit-perspective.blogspot.com
JMartin,
I would not be surprised if the incessant mortar harrassment by Hamas against Israeli citizens prompts the Israelis to rally for another Netanyahu administration. Its about time the Israelis took the fight to Hamas. What the media has failed to properly report is the fact that Hamas has been firing mortars and rockets routinely now at Israeli towns for months. The impetus for the Israelis to vote for Netanyahu may be there. However, I don't know if Netanyahu covets the PM position or not. Also, if he did run for PM, all the anti-Sharon interests would come out of the woodwork.
Sajid,
The Fed decreases interest rates by printing more paper money available as loanable funds. Interest rates represent the price of loanable funds. As the supply of loanable funds increases, the price or interest rate of loanable funds must decrease. What the Fed wants to do is to manipulate the law of demand. They want to increase the quantity of loanable funds demanded because the Keynesians at the Fed believe that spending is the magic cure for recessions. Such a monetary policy is inflationary, flagrantly inflationary. By printing more paper notes, they decrease the purchasing power of the USD.
This, as you allude to, is an entirely mistaken measure to take. The recession is vital - it is a market method of cleansing the economy of its malinvestments, malinvestments caused by rapid, artificial credit expansion that takes the form of such government interest rate decreases that cause the very problems we are citing to begin with!!! By stalling the recession, the Fed is obstructing the healing process.
Its economic free-basing...
Minimum wage laws are, by contrast, a part of "social" economic policy. Minimum wages are imposed because they are, among other things, politically popular, especially during recessions. Recessions involve price decreases as people refrain from spending in order to save and invest in future production. Such price decreases must involve wage decreases as wages represent the price of labour. However, name me a country whose electorate is well-versed in economics enough to realize that wages must fall in order for malinvestments to be removed.
|
| Sunday, January 4, 2009 at 5:53:28 mst
Comment ID: #4
Name: Michael Labeit
E-mail: logician169(at)yahoo.com
URL: http://unit-perspective.blogspot.com
Does the concept of "a priori knowledge" have any legitimacy in any context. I suspect that it does, when defined a careful and specific way. I certainly believe that all knowledge ultimately rests upon sense perception. But I also certainly believe that some conclusions need not empirical testing in order to validate. (Example - Socialism discourages production and makes the rational allocation of production and consumption goods impossible)
Thanks.
|
| Sunday, January 4, 2009 at 8:12:34 mst
Comment ID: #5
Name: rrlv_frsh
In case anyone is still undecided about investing the time and effort to read Good_Calories,_Bad_Calories, by Gary Taubes, I would like to offer my own observations for anyone who may be interested. (All page references below are from the Anchor Books softcover edition, September 2008.)
It is easy to be enthusiastic about this book. Taubes' presentation is, first and foremost, a stirring defense of objectivity in science, which will have strong appeal for Objectivists and others who value reason. As I was reading the book, I frequently found myself yearning for similarly factual and thorough journalistic reporting on climate science (global warming and cooling), and on economic science, especially the actual history and economic operation of free markets and government interventions.
In regard to nutrition science, the book deals most prominently with the "diseases of civilization," such as heart attacks, artery disease, diabetes (especially "Type 2"), obesity, many forms of cancer, and what has come to be known as metabolic syndrome. Taubes offers a compelling nutritional explanation for such diseases, namely, consumption of refined carbohydrates in the diet, principally white flour, sugar (and high fructose corn syrup), and white (polished) rice. The book readily acknowledges that a low-carb diet is necessarily a high-fat diet [p. 312], since man must obtain energy calories from somewhere. The book also shows by overwhelming weight of evidence that the widespread concerns about fat and cholesterol in the diet are seriously mistaken, based on extremely thin and ambiguous scientific evidence in the face of a huge wealth of contrary evidence. The book traces the history of how the "fat hypothesis" rose to prominence despite the lack of scientific foundation for it. [See especially Chapter 6.]
Unfortunately, the book tends to overstate the case against *unrefined* carbohydrates, and understates the importance of the rise of agriculture. (See especially the Epilogue, pp. 454-456.) Yet agricultural products such as unrefined carbohydrates have thoroughly demonstrated their enormous value to man for sustaining vast human populations. The book makes a strong point of the fact that human evolution dates back at least two million years. [p. 68] ("Human" here includes pre-modern humans as well as the comparatively more recent modern man, "Homo sapiens," who dates back to about 200,000 years ago at most.) Prior to the rise of agriculture about 10,000 years ago, humans survived as primitive hunter-gatherers. The "gatherer" portion of their nutritional mix certainly included unrefined carbohydrates, estimated to have been as high as 22 to 40 percent of energy. The "hunter" and "gatherer" portions together also provided fat, estimated to have been 28 to 58 percent of energy. (See page 69. The remaining energy calories apparently came from protein, although protein alone cannot supply nearly enough calories to meet a normal daily human energy expenditure, nor can one obtain much natural protein without the accompanying fat.)
Taubes' main point here is to establish that man is well adapted to eat meat (fat and protein), although this does not necessarily show that man is adapted to survive without carbohydrates as well. (Paleolithic man probably had to eat whatever he could find.) At the same time, the two-million-year human paleolithic (pre-agriculture) era also shows that man is well adapted to eat unrefined carbohydrates, although again it does not necessarily show that man is adapted to survive without substantial meat in the nutritional mix. In addition, 10,000 years of experience *after* the rise of agriculture, and *before* the rise of "diseases of civilization," should be overwhelmingly sufficient to show that increased consumption of *unrefined* carbohydrates does not lead to health issues such as we see in more modern times, and that large human populations can survive perfectly well on agricultural products. (The greatest explosions of human population came much later with the revolutions in art, science, industry and forms of government in the centuries following the Renaissance.)
Taubes explains that the rise of "diseases of civilization" did not begin until about one or two centuries ago, and closely followed the increased refining of carbohydrates. (See Chapter 6, especially pp. 112-121.) Refining strips away fiber (indigestible carbohydrates). [p. 96] Taubes explains that the work of reasearchers such as Cleave and Yudkin led to the "carbohydrate hypothesis" of "diseases of civilization" as caused by the refined carbohydrates. "By the early 1970s, the medical-research community was taking Yudkin's hypothesis seriously." [p. 120]
Meanwhile, however, Ancel Keys in the U.S. had been advancing a counter hypothesis that fat was the main culprit in "diseases of civilization." Taubes concludes Chapter 6 with a brief description of how Keys managed to prevail over Yudkin in the U.S. by the end of the 1970s, on extremely thin scientific evidence and decidedly non-scientific means of pursuasion.
Taubes typically (though not entirely consistently) qualifies references to harmful carbohydrates as pertaining to *refined* carbs. In fact, he points out that "whenever investigators tested the hypothesis that chronic disease was caused by high fat intake or even high animal-fat intake or low carbohydrate intake, the refinement of the carbohydrates would *confound* the results." [p. 116, emphasis in original] In other words, correlations to total carbs will obscure the research results unless the proportion of refined vs. unrefined carbs is also considered. In the very next chapter [#7], discussing Denis Burkitt's fiber hypothesis, Taubes writes: "Better to say *Don't Forget Fibre in Your Diet*, which was the title of Burkitt's 1979 diet book, than to say, Don't eat sugar, flour, and white rice, and drink less beer." [p. 128. In context, the reference to "flour" clearly pertains to white flour rather than wholemeal bread.] Consuming more fiber means consuming more unrefined carbohydrates.
Taubes describes the work of Peter Cleave as follows: "The refining of carbohydrates represented the most dramatic change in human nutrition since the introduction of agriculture." [p. 114] Taubes then explains the principal ways in which Cleave believed the concentration of carbohydrates in the refining process did its damage: it promoted overconsumption, "exacerbated by the removal of protein from the original product.... Finally, the refining process increased the rate of digestion of carbohydrates, and so the onrush of blood sugar on the pancreas, which would explain diabetes." [p. 114]
In contrast to refined carbohydrates, Cleave described natural, unrefined carbohydrates like potatoes: "In the case of eating potatoes, for example, the conversion of the starch into sugar, and the absorption of this sugar into the blood-stream, is a slower and gentler process than the violent one that follows the eating of [any] mass of concentrated sugar." [pp. 114-115, parenthetical in original.] Taubes continues: "The link between refined carbohydrates and disease had been obscured over the years, Cleave and Campbell explained, by the 'insufficient appreciation of the distinction' between carbohydrate foods in their natural state and the unnatural refined carbohydrates -- treating sugar and white flour as equivalent to raw fruit, vegetables, and wholemeal flour." Taubes mentions failure of researchers, when they included sugar consumption in their analyses at all, to "make a distinction between wholemeal bread and white four, between brown rice and white." [p. 115] Taubes further observes, "This lack of concern for any potential health-related difference between vegetables and starches, on the one hand, and refined starches and sugars on the other, has haunted cancer research as well.... [Researchers] did not serve science well by ignoring sugar consumption and the difference between refined and unrefined carbohydrates." [pp. 117-118]
Taubes explains that a key effect of carbohydrates, especially refined carbs, is to trigger insulin secretion as a result of rising glucose levels in the bloodstream. The insulin is essential to promote the burning of glucose for energy, as well as the storing of fat for later energy use as the glucose becomes depleted. [pp. 386, 392, 432-435] Refined carbs cause a very large surge in glucose, triggering a very large surge in insulin secretion. The glucose is burned off rapidly, leaving too much residual insulin, which promotes continued fat storage and suppresses the burning of fat for fuel after the glucose has been depleted. But with *unrefined* carbs, the glucose rise and fall are far more gradual than with refined carbs, as noted by Cleave in the description of potatoes, above. (The energy content of a baked potato without added high-calorie toppings is about 150 calories, compared to a 2000-calorie daily energy expenditure. One would need about 13 potatoes to support a 2000-calorie energy expenditure if one did not also receive calories from other foods. Similar quantity relationships also apply to most other unrefined carbs. Such quantities tend to discourage excessive calorie ingestion, in contrast to refined carbs.)
If one eats carbs, another factor that can reduce carb-induced glucose and insulin surges in the bloodstream is to eat several small meals each day instead of two or three large ones. [p. 408] This is similar to the pattern of plant-eating animals -- "grazing," rather than "gorging-and-fasting" like meat-eating animals. The worst case for humans is gorging on *refined* carbs, and/or frequent snacking ("grazing") on *refined* carbs.
What, then, should man eat? Taubes' survey and analysis of the evidence show that man can meet his caloric energy needs equally well from either fat and protein, or unrefined carbs, or some mixture of these, as long as the carbs (if any) are unrefined and limited in calorie intake to what the body can effectively burn for fuel (and, as already noted, it is far harder to "overeat" bulky, fiber rich, complex, unrefined carbs than the more highly concentrated, refined variety).
Man also needs micronutriets as well as energy calories, and Taubes explains that most essential micronutrients can be obtained perfectly well from meat as well as from plants. [pp. 320-326, 456-457] Taubes mentions a few cautionary issues about obtaining micronutrients exclusively from meat instead of plants, or vice versa.
Thus, my own "take-aways" from Taubes' book are that if you want to eat meat (with its fat content), go ahead. And if you want to eat *unrefined* carbs, they're ok, too (if you don't overeat). Just stay away from the *refined* carbs most of the time (if not always).
Taubes doesn't discuss digestive comfort, but other nutrition writers have pointed out (and my own experience has confirmed) that unrefined carbs can be a very effective alternative to meat if you suffer any digestive problems from meat. I've noticed that Diana, too, has been quite negative about the kinds of meat one typically finds in modern supermarkets, though perhaps for other reasons. I've also found that unrefined carbs make an excellent buffer for fresh vegetables, allowing greater consumption of all kinds of nutrient-rich vegetables, if one has any digestive difficulty with vegetables. The veggies, in turn, help to alleviate any excess craving for carbs (refined or unrefined). I.e., vegetables and moderate fruit (eaten whole) nicely complement the more starchy (unrefined) carbohydrate foods. But again, Taubes' evidence and analysis show that high-fat/low-carb foods (animal products) are nutritionally ok, too (subject to freshness and other quality standards, as with all foods).
|
| Sunday, January 4, 2009 at 8:42:43 mst
Comment ID: #6
Name: brian0918
E-mail: my handle, through gmail
rrlv_frsh: You make a good point about the period *between* the beginning of agriculture and the refinement of carbs. I would be interested to know of any data on life expectancy, heart attack rates, etc in the centuries before the 1800s (when carbs began to be refined and consumption of sugar started to rise). Once that is known, I would also want to find out if/how any unrefined carb-containing foods were bred differently starting in that period - for example, fruits began to be bred for sweetness, and thus increased fructose consumption. The sweet, yellow banana, for example, didn't come about until 1836. Maybe in that same regard, people began preparing grain-based foods in different ways, or breeding those grains for different features.
|
| Sunday, January 4, 2009 at 10:39:37 mst
Comment ID: #7
Name: KPO'M
E-mail: ka84796(at)comcast.net
A question for the group. When discussion issues with non-Objectivists, what do you find to be the biggest area of resistance, and how do you address it?
|
| Sunday, January 4, 2009 at 10:40:34 mst
Comment ID: #8
Name: KPO'M
E-mail: ka84796(at)comcast.net
Of course, I meant "discussing" not "discussion." Anyway, a follow-up question is also what concepts you find the easiest to discuss with non-Objectivists.
|
| Sunday, January 4, 2009 at 10:40:35 mst
Comment ID: #9
Name: KPO'M
E-mail: ka84796(at)comcast.net
Of course, I meant "discussing" not "discussion." Anyway, a follow-up question is also what concepts you find the easiest to discuss with non-Objectivists.
|
| Sunday, January 4, 2009 at 10:41:16 mst
Comment ID: #10
Name: Adam Reed
E-mail: adamreedatalumdotmitdotedu
URL: http://borntoidentify.blogspot.com/
Michael Labeit:
You ask, "Does the concept of "a priori knowledge" have any legitimacy in any context. I suspect that it does, when defined a careful and specific way. I certainly believe that all knowledge ultimately rests upon sense perception. But I also certainly believe that some conclusions need not empirical testing in order to validate. (Example - Socialism discourages production and makes the rational allocation of production and consumption goods impossible)"
Michael,
1. If you hold that "all knowledge ultimately rests upon sense perception," this excludes "a priori knowledge" in the sense in which "a priori knowledge" is used in philosophy.
2. A proposition derived by valid logic from prior propositions that are known to be true, is known to be true at the lowest epistemological level at which any of those prior propositions is known, in the joint context of all the specific contexts in which those prior propositions are known to be true at that level. Taking, for example, a proposition derived from several axioms together with two measured facts that are contextually certain within the range and precision of the measurements from which they are known; that derived proposition is contextually certain in the joint context in which those two prior facts are contextually certain.
3. Your example, "Socialism discourages production and makes the rational allocation of production and consumption goods impossible," is known today to be true - contextually certain - from direct measurement of the relevant facts of reality (google "Heilbroner Socialism" for the rest of the story.) To evaluate its epistemological status before Heilbroner's measurements one would need to (1) examine its logical derivation from previously known facts, (2) determine the epistemic status and context of each of those previously known facts, and (3) assign the lowest epistemic status of any of the prior facts from which this conclusion was derived, and the context that would result from joining the contexts of all of them, as the epistemic status and context of the conclusion. Neither before nor after Heilbroner's measurements would your example have had anything to do with "a priori knowledge."
|
| Sunday, January 4, 2009 at 11:15:30 mst
Comment ID: #11
Name: Monica Hughes
E-mail: monicabeth10(at)gmail.com
URL: http://fa-rm.org
"The sweet, yellow banana, for example, didn't come about until 1836. Maybe in that same regard, people began preparing grain-based foods in different ways, or breeding those grains for different features."
Brian, that's interesting on the banana. You raise some insightful possibilities re: grains. One of them is true.
I'm not aware of any research that plant breeding of grains resulted in anything more than higher yields per plant. That, of course, has been the main focus of plant breeding and it's been wildly successful, increasing grain yields per acre by about 10 fold in the past century. I have seen no evidence that the nutritional content of grains has not really changed, though. I know for certain that this is not the focus of modern genetic engineering, except for one example (golden rice engineered to contain beta carotene, which in my opinion is not actually going to be very helpful to those with vitamin A deficiencies). As such, most flours are still fortified with a variety of B vitamins, including niacin, thiamine and folic acid -- and iron -- because they're so devoid of nutritional content. My guess is that most people today would show severe vitamin deficiencies, on the order of what was observed in earlier decades and centuries, if flour was not fortified -- particularly since flour is comprising a larger portion of the western diet than ever before.
There are other differences in processing grain products that have also led to modern problems, as you suggest. Sourdough fermentation, which breaks down gluten and was widely used in the 1800s, has almost completely been replaced with quick rise techniques and yeasts. Sourdough bread can and should take anywhere from a day to four days to make, during which time the flour is fermented (I've personally done this). I don't think it's any surprise that 1% of the population manifest seemingly "new" conditions such as full blown celiac disease, probably partly as a result of this processing change on the part of bakeries everywhere. Another 10% of the population shows gluten intolerance as well, though not full-blown celiac. I don't know enough about the epidemiology of celiac disease to say whether it was equally prevalent 100 years ago, but my guess is not. It's still a very insufficient food source without modern supplementation, nutritionally speaking.
That doesn't mean one can't enjoy bread now and then -- but it's not something I personally choose to take my chances on every day. I ate bread regularly all my life until 6 months ago. Here are some excellent posts on the matter: http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/search/label/celiac
As for the co-evolutionary history of grains with humans, I can't help but reproduce a large portion of this excellent post: http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/07/grains-and-human-evol ... (Just FYI, ancient methods of processing foods -- both grains, vegetables, and dairy -- that may make them more digestible is heavily discussed in Nourishing Traditions, the cookbook by Sally Fallon and Mary Enig of the Weston A Price Foundation).
"The story is more complicated than the dates suggest, however. Although wheat had its origin 11,500 years ago, it didn't become widespread in Western Europe for another 4,500 years. So if you're of European descent, your ancestors have been eating grains for roughly 7,000 years. Corn was domesticated 9,000 years ago, but according to the carbon ratios of human teeth, it didn't become a major source of calories until about 1,200 years ago! Many American groups did not adopt a grain-based diet until 100-300 years ago, and in a few cases they still have not. If you are of African descent, your ancestors have been eating grains for 9,000 to 0 years, depending on your heritage. The change to grains was accompanied by a marked decrease in dental health that shows up clearly in the archaeological record.
"Practically every plant food contains some kind of toxin, but grains produce a number of nasty ones that humans are not well adapted to. Grains contain a large amount of phytic acid for example, which strongly inhibits the absorption of a number of important minerals. Tubers, which were our main carbohydrate source for about 1.5 million years before agriculture, contain less of it. This may have been a major reason why stature decreased when humans adopted grain-based agriculture. There are a number of toxins that occur in grains but not in tubers, such as certain heat-resistant lectins.
"Non-industrial cultures often treated their seeds, including grains, differently than we do today. They used soaking, sprouting and long fermentation to decrease the amount of toxins found in grains, making them more nutritious and digestible. Most grain staples are not treated in this way today, and so we bear the brunt of their toxins even more than our ancestors did.
"From an evolutionary standpoint, even 11,500 years is the blink of an eye. Add to that the fact that many people descend from groups that have been eating grains for far less time than that, and you begin to see the problem. There is no doubt that we have begun adapting genetically to grains. All you have to do to understand this is look back at the archaeological record, to see the severe selective pressure (read: disease) that grains placed on its early adopters. But the question is, have we had time to adapt sufficiently to make it a healthy food? I would argue the answer is no.
"There are a few genetic adaptations I'm aware of that might pertain to grains: the duplication of the salivary amylase gene, and polymorphisms in the angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) and apolipoprotein B genes. Some groups duplicated a gene that secretes the enzyme amylase into the saliva, increasing its production. Amylase breaks down starch, indicating a possible increase in its consumption. The problem is that we were getting starch from tubers before we got it from grains, so it doesn't really argue for either side in my opinion. The ACE and apolipoprotein B genes may be more pertinent, because they relate to blood pressure and LDL cholesterol. Blood pressure and blood cholesterol are both factors that respond well to low-carbohydrate (and thus low-grain) diets, suggesting that the polymorphisms may be a protective adaptation against the cardiovascular effects of grains.
"The fact that up to 1% of people of European descent may have full-blown celiac disease attests to the fact that 7,000 years have not been enough time to fully adapt to wheat on a population level. Add to that the fact that nearly half of genetic Europeans carry genes that are associated with celiac, and you can see that we haven't been weeded out thoroughly enough to tolerate wheat, the oldest grain!
"Based on my reading, discussions and observations, I believe that rice is the least problematic grain, wheat is the worst, and everything else is somewhere in between. If you want to eat grains, it's best to soak, sprout or ferment them. This activates enzymes that break down most of the toxins. You can soak rice, barley and other grains overnight before cooking them. Sourdough bread is better than normal white bread. Unfermented, unsprouted whole wheat bread may actually be the worst of all.
|
| Sunday, January 4, 2009 at 11:15:31 mst
Comment ID: #12
Name: Richard
E-mail: rbramwell(at)sympatico.ca
To Labeit's comment (#3) to Sajid, let's add that Greenspan kept interest rates at 1%!!
|
| Sunday, January 4, 2009 at 11:23:04 mst
Comment ID: #13
Name: Richard
E-mail: rbramwell(at)sympatico.ca
@ brian0918 (#6),
The problem is the reporting of statistics prior to 1900. They may be indicative, but often research with reliable results was just not possible.
An interesting, though with a somewhat suspect method and thesis, is "Eat Right for Your Blood Type" by Peter J. D'Adamo. Adamo and his father had studied the evolution of blood types from different regions in the world.
To simplify:
* - The O-type was ubiquitous by the late hunter-gatherer stage of human progress, meat being a dominant food.
* - A-type became common where an agrarian lifestyle was adopted; it is pulse & grain (not wheat) oriented.
* - B-type developed in the Urals and Himalayan steppe regions and was spread by the Mongols; it favors dairy foods.
* - AB-type is recent (within the last ~1000 yrs) & uncommon, occurs in only 5% of humans & is a blend of A & B. Foods favorable to the AB-type require individual experimentation, though Adamo reports certain standards as OK.
Adamo tested the reaction of the major blood types to small quantities of dissolved foods, by adding the latter to a well slide containing a drop of blood. He claims each blood type had its own characteristic reaction for each food tested, presuming (my word) that clumping of cells indicated 'incompatibility'. The variety and number of foods the author tested is astonishing.
I am an A-type, and found that focusing on more of A-type foods, removing certain of which I knew I was allergic to, worked quite well for me. I had a clearer head and was generally more invigorated. I found the recommendations to markedly reduce wheat (unless sprouted) and dairy was particularly beneficial. My father is an O-type, and had been avoiding meat. My Mum increased his meat portions and reduced grains and rice proportionately and he was noticeably happier and more active.
Even if Adamo's Blood Type approach is not 100% reasonable, I consider the basic facts of human development through hunter-gatherer, agrarian, nomadic and mixing stages to have some logical merit with respect to suitable diet. That is, I cannot conclude that the Paleo diet (hunter-gatherer) is necessarily a best diet for the non-O blood types. Some hold that the Paleo diet applies to all people, but I suspect that claim is too sweeping.
Perhaps, in due course, nutritionists will become capable of identifying individual dietary pros and cons. As babies, we will be started out on a dietary routine suited to our particular constitution, and continue through life making any necessary changes that will ensure greater health, happiness and longevity.
|
| Sunday, January 4, 2009 at 11:57:56 mst
Comment ID: #14
Name: Jeff
I have a question regarding inflation...
The price indexes simply measure the variation in the purchasing power of money. So if prices are to be viewed as the ratio of the monetary value to the value of the thing purchased, then the ratio can change either by a change in the value of the monetary unit or the thing purchased. This means that the exact amount of monetary inflation as opposed to the increased valuation of a consumer good can never be ascertained, meaning inflation can never be accurately predicted and therefore can not be guarded against by a corresponding interest rate increase. Is this the source of the destruction caused by inflation, or does it have some other (or additional) source?
|
| Sunday, January 4, 2009 at 12:27:49 mst
Comment ID: #15
Name: Monica Hughes
E-mail: monicabeth10(at)gmail.com
URL: http://fa-rm.org
"I consider the basic facts of human development through hunter-gatherer, agrarian, nomadic and mixing stages to have some logical merit with respect to suitable diet. That is, I cannot conclude that the Paleo diet (hunter-gatherer) is necessarily a best diet for the non-O blood types. Some hold that the Paleo diet applies to all people, but I suspect that claim is too sweeping."
I agree in part. My personal diet is not "paleo". I drink milk, but I don't think it's optimal for everyone. However, I think there's still some good evidence that *grains* are particularly problematic -- even for European people eating them in their original tribal groups that would have been exposed to grains for a relatively long time period, as indicated above. I'm extremely skeptical that grains are an ideal or necessary food for ANY human, regardless of their heritage and regardless of whether that grain is not wheat. (Just FYI, pulses also have a variety of toxins that require special processing.)
Here is why.
Weston A Price actually presents some data on this. Here are the figures of the percentage of teeth attacked by cavities in various racial groups. Usually at least 100 people were studied, but it was often several hundred. The first number is the percent of teeth attached by cavities in the isolated primitive group. The second number is the percent cavities in teeth in the same race of people that had gone onto the western diet (flours, canned goods, sweets):
Swiss 4.6 29.8
Gaelic 1.2 30.0
Eskimos 0.09 13.0
Northern Indians 0.16 21.5
Seminole Indians 4.00 40.0
Melanesians 0.38 29.0
Polynesians 0.32 21.9
Africans 0.2 6.8
Australian Aborigines 0.00 (!) 70.9
New Zealand Maori 0.01 55.3
Malays 0.09 20.6
Coastal Peruvians 0.04 40.0+
High Andes Indians 0.00 40.0+
Amazon Jungle Indians 0.00 40.0+
Data from Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, p. 441
OK -- which cultures were eating grains in their primitive tribal groups? There were two, to my knowledge. The Swiss and the Gaelics, 2 of the three groups having the highest level of cavities while eating primitive foods. The Swiss ate sprouted rye bread and the Gaelics ate soaked oatmeal. Of course, the outlier here are the Seminole Indians. I searched Nutrition and Physical Degeneration to try to discover what was in the diet of the Seminoles -- unfortunately Price doesn't say, but does indicate that they were the most secretive group he came into contact with. There's a possibility he simply wasn't able to discover all that they were eating, but I'll have a look into this and report back. It would be good to know if something they were eating was correlated with slightly inferior dental health.
As far as the differences in dental health between primitive and modern foods, the evidence is abundant when comparing the two experimental "treatments" controlling for genetics. If chi square tests were done on comparisons of primitive vs. modern in each tribe it would be highly, highly significant in every case.
But back to the grains. The level of cavities in 2 of the three tribes, the only two that were probably eating grains, is slightly more than 3- to 460-fold higher than the other groups, excluding the Seminoles. At such low numbers one may question whether that's really biologically significant. But let's convert this to absolute numbers. For the Swiss, this would be about one cavity in every person. For the New Zealand Maori it would be about one cavity in every 500 people, if my rough calculations are correct.
|
| Sunday, January 4, 2009 at 12:36:00 mst
Comment ID: #16
Name: KPO'M
E-mail: ka84796(at)comcast.net
Jeff,
Price indices are subject to lots of manipulation. The CPI is based on a "basket of goods" that is adjusted ostensibly to account for changes in technology and consumer preferences (it might have made sense to have a typewriter in the basket in 1980 but not in 2009). Of course, that also subjects it to political manipulation.
However, the larger issue of inflation is that it is based on the concept of fiat money. Unlike in the past, when we had a gold standard or used physical goods (e.g. tobacco, other metals) as media for exchange, today we use pieces of paper and electrons created and destroyed at the whims of central bankers. If the Fed wants to create money, they just buy bonds with money created out of thin air. What happens is that the value of money becomes divorced from the value of the goods and services that it is supposed to represent. It isn't a one-for-one impact, but generally speaking, the more money out there, the more units of currency it takes to purchase any good or service. Inflation rewards borrowers at the expense of savers.
|
| Sunday, January 4, 2009 at 12:41:27 mst
Comment ID: #17
Name: Monica Hughes
E-mail: monicabeth10(at)gmail.com
URL: http://fa-rm.org
By the way, Weston A Price searched for over 10 years traveling the world looking for a dietary basis for human health. He searched long and hard for any vegetarian groups that might be healthy. He found none. He did discover some vegetarian tribes in Africa. The lowest level of cavities was around 20% of teeth in these groups.
Humans enjoy vibrant health when occupying the right ecological niche -- just like any other animal. The difference is that we unfortunately do not have instincts to tell us what to eat. We have to look at evolutionary history and examine those foods with modern science.
Both rrlv-frsh and Richard are correct: the macronutrient content can vary widely, with carbohydrate intake being high, and people can still be very healthy, even optimally healthy. But the type of carbohydrates are critical. I'm convinced that grains are not necessary and they're most certainly not optimal for the vast majority of people, even those of European descent. Unfortunately, we will never be able to do studies of the primitive Swiss or Gaelic to see whether an elimination of grains would have improved their dental health -- there are very few such groups in existence today. However, there is remarkable evidence in Price's book that supplementation with fat soluble vitamins A, D, and K2 can often completely resolve cavities. The demand for D in the human body, which is strongly linked to bone and dental health, is increased when one goes on a grain-based diet. I believe that this explains the slightly less healthy teeth in the primitive Gaelic and Swiss.
|
| Sunday, January 4, 2009 at 12:47:22 mst
Comment ID: #18
Name: Mark Wickens
E-mail: noodlefood(at)wickens.ca
URL: http://randex.org/
Does anyone know who Anne Heller is? She's the author of what looks to be a well-promoted biography of Ayn Rand, _Ayn Rand and the World She Made_, due in October. See the bottom of this page:
http://www.randomhouse.com/nanatalese/titlescoming.html
and Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/Ayn-Rand-World-She-Made/dp/0385513992
Mark
|
| Sunday, January 4, 2009 at 13:06:12 mst
Comment ID: #19
Name: IchorFigure
In all the news articles regarding Israel's ongoing attack on Gaza, the weapons being fired by Hamas into Israel are referred to as "rockets". The word "rocket" sounds very plain, and almost innocuous, but I've so far been unable to discover exactly what type of rockets they are using. I'm curious because I'd like a better idea of what they're dealing with. Can anyone offer further details on what these weapons are and their capabilities?
|
| Sunday, January 4, 2009 at 13:51:31 mst
Comment ID: #20
Name: JMartin
E-mail: jemartinsen(at)gmail.com
Mark,
I know very little about her, but judging by this she was a speaker at the "50th Anniversary of Atlas Shrugged", hosted by the Atlas Society.
http://www.booktv.org/program.aspx?ProgramId=8760&SectionName=& ...
|
| Sunday, January 4, 2009 at 14:01:32 mst
Comment ID: #21
Name: William H Stoddard
E-mail: whswhs(at)mindspring.com
URL: http://whswhs.livejournal.com/profile
I've followed Adam's recommendation to google "Heilbroner socialism," but it's not obvious to me why the results are a basis for contextual certainty.
Heilbroner did admit that capitalism was economically workable and socialism was not, and that Mises, Hayek, and Friedman had been right. But his comments don't seem to go beyond treating this as a brute historical fact, in the sense in which a rock might be a brute geological fact. An explorer might note that a certain rock was found in a certain location. A geologist could tell you how the mineral the rock is made of was formed, how it came to be a certain shape, how it arrived at that location, and what this told us about the larger geological processes in the region; in other words, he could integrate the rock with a broader range of knowledge from which the specific observed facts about the rock could be explained. His knowledge of that specific rock would attain a more higher level of contextual certainty. And Heilbroner doesn't seem to have any such broader theoretical perspective from which to explain the failure of socialist economies.
But such a perspective was certainly available: Mises, Hayek, and Rothbard, among others, all offered explanations of the failure of socialism. And Mises arrived at his explanation not by looking at the concrete facts about specific socialist economies, but by understanding how capitalist economies works and what happened when you removed certain essential elements. The whole topic is addressed very clearly in Steele's "From Marx to Mises." Heilbroner doesn't seem to have ever grasped Mises' theoretical perspective, or attained the real understanding of how economies work that Mises offered. Of course, he was handicapped by his socialist starting point, but the British science fiction writer Ken MacLeod, who started out as a Trotskyite, seems to have grasped Mises' critique of socialism at a conceptual level and decided that it was compellingâ€"so such an understanding is attainable. I would think that Heilbroner is not as good a basis for the contextual certainty Adam is looking for as Mises.
|
| Sunday, January 4, 2009 at 14:52:02 mst
Comment ID: #22
Name: KPO'M
E-mail: ka84796(at)comcast.net
To Mark Wickens:
Judging solely by the cover and the description at Amazon and Random House, it looks like a hatchet job to me. The "rise and fall of the cult surrounding her" doesn't sound very flattering. That said, if she has some original research or anything else not previously released, perhaps she could offer some factual insight.
If this is the same biographer, it looks like she's a big contributor to Obama, among others.
http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/contributions/anne-heller.as ...
|
| Sunday, January 4, 2009 at 15:11:34 mst
Comment ID: #23
Name: KPO'M
E-mail: ka84796(at)comcast.net
Something I have noticed among most groups of self-professed Objectivists that I have encountered is that support for Israel invariably is very strong. My questions to the posters here are why do you think that is the case, do you share that support, and do you think our government has a valuable interest in active philosophical, political, and/or military support for Israel?
While I respect the rights of their citizens and government to defend themselves (and that includes shelling Hamas), I'm not sure I view them much differently from other countries around the world. If it is primarily a matter of a fellow mixed-economy country fighting Islamic extremism, then why is there not the same degree of public support for other countries in the same situation (the Philippines, for example, or to a lesser extent India and even Turkey)? Are there other factors that warrant more active support of Israel vs. other countries (e.g. something about them in particular that makes them more worthy of our support)?
|
| Sunday, January 4, 2009 at 15:18:53 mst
Comment ID: #24
Name: Tom Rowland
E-mail: trowland08(at)gmail.com
Michael-
The short answer is "no" but rather than simply leave it at that, I want to suggest that you be absolutely clear about what "a priori knowledge" means. The sentence you give as an example is the conclusion of a fairly long deductive argument that starts with identifying definitions of 'Socialism,' 'production,''discourage,'rational,''consumption,' etc, all of which are far from being perceptual. And VERY far from being self-evident. If they were self-evident we would be living in a far different world than we are now, and Mises would have wasted his time. You use the phrase "empirical testing" which means to me that you have been taught or you believe that the validation of the proposition requires that we set up a live experiment of some kind with a control population, etc. so that we might see it in practice first, thus making the proposition 'a posteriori.' But such a test is not necessary because it is possible to support it with reference to earlier concepts which can be reduced to percepts. What is self-evident is that the issue of the possibility of a priori knowledge is illegitimate, since the answer to any question of fact(in this case whether there is such a thing as knowledge 'a priori') rests on the assmption that all knowledge is an identification of facts in evidence, i.e, 'a posteriori.' A good place to start is Peikoff's essay on the analytic-synthetic dichotomy in "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology.'
|
| Sunday, January 4, 2009 at 15:30:45 mst
Comment ID: #25
Name: Kevin Clark
Monica,
From reading about Weston Price and his world-wide travels and his scientific methodology, I am struck by how much he resembles Charles Darwin. Price might very well go down as the Darwin of nutrition. Thank you for bringing him to my attention.
|
| Sunday, January 4, 2009 at 15:44:27 mst
Comment ID: #26
Name: Jeff
To KPO'M
You said, "Inflation rewards borrowers at the expense of savers." If inflation rates are known, then would not banks simply increase interest rates correspondingly? I guess my question is, does inflation reward borrowers at the expense of savers because inflation rates are not known (and indeed cannot be) or does it do it by some other means?
Say I have 10,000 dollars in the bank with a known annual inflation of 3%. The nominal interest rate would be say 3%, so would not the banks offer an interest rate of 6%? The devaluation of the currency is thus countered by the increased interest rates.
|
| Sunday, January 4, 2009 at 16:01:09 mst
Comment ID: #27
Name: Monica Hughes
E-mail: monicabeth10(at)gmail.com
URL: http://fa-rm.org
Kevin, it's very funny you should say that, because he is in fact referred to as "the Charles Darwin of nutrition."
I don't agree with all of his conclusions in the book, particularly as diet pertains to human behavior (I think some of these points in later chapters have actually been discredited now, not for dishonesty reason but because of other causal explanations having more proof), but he was amazingly perceptive and published much of this work in highly reputable journals. Reading it changed my life in a way that only one other book ever has -- Atlas Shrugged.
|
| Sunday, January 4, 2009 at 16:19:48 mst
Comment ID: #28
Name: KPO'M
E-mail: ka84796(at)comcast.net
Jeff, the reason that doesn't work is that the Fed inflates the currency precisely by manipulating interest rates downward. If they go and buy up billions of dollars of bonds, that reduces the supply of bonds, which pushes the prices up and the interest rates down. Banks can't simply raise the interest rates they pay because the Fed's actions have reduced the rates of return they can receive on the investments that they purchase with the proceeds of the debt issuances.
Perhaps, if commercial banks, money market funds, and other financial intermediaries acted in concert to try to thwart the Fed's moves, they could have some impact. However, the Fed has the advantage of an unlimited supply of money (they can create it at will), its direct regulatory authority over bank holding companies (the universe of which is expanding), and its government-backed authority to "stabilize" markets by setting reserve requirements.
|
| Sunday, January 4, 2009 at 19:28:55 mst
Comment ID: #29
Name: Mark Wickens
E-mail: noodlefood(at)wickens.ca
URL: http://randex.org/
To KPO'M:
Thanks for digging up the campaign contribution info. It does look like it will be bad. James Valliant: Ready to write another book? :-)
I did see the "cult" reference in the book description, but I don't know if authors have control over them. (Andy Bernstein's latest book description describes AR's ideas as "impenetratable." I assume he's not responsible for that!)
MW
|
| Sunday, January 4, 2009 at 19:31:10 mst
Comment ID: #30
Name: Mark Wickens
E-mail: noodlefood(at)wickens.ca
URL: http://randex.org/
"Impenetrable," that is.
|
| Sunday, January 4, 2009 at 20:15:41 mst
Comment ID: #31
Name: brian0918
E-mail: my handle, through gmail
Monica,
A book on the Seminole from 1884 lists the following on their food:
"Read the bill of fare from which the Florida Indians may select, and compare with that the scanty supplies within reach of the North Carolina Cherokee or the Lake Superior Chippewa. Here is a list of their meats: Of flesh, at any time venison, often opossum, sometimes rabbit and squirrel, occasionally bear, and a land terrapin, called the “gopher,” and pork whenever they wish it. Of wild fowl, duck, quail, and turkey in abundance. Of home reared fowl, chickens, more than they are willing to use. Of fish, they can catch myriads of the many kinds which teem in the inland waters of Florida, especially of the large bass, called “trout” by the whites of the State, while on the seashore they can get many forms of edible marine life, especially turtles and oysters. Equally well off are these Indians in respect to grains, vegetables, roots, and fruits. They grow maize in considerable quantity, and from it make hominy and flour, and all the rice they need they gather from the swamps. Their vegetables are chiefly sweet potatoes, large and much praised melons and pumpkins, and, if I may classify it with vegetables, the tender new growth of the tree called the cabbage palmetto. Among roots, there is the great dependence of these Indians, the abounding Koonti; also the wild potato, a small tuber found in black swamp land, and peanuts in great quantities. Of fruits, the Seminole family may supply itself with bananas, oranges (sour and sweet), limes, lemons, guavas, pineapples, grapes (black and red), cocoa nuts, cocoa plums, sea grapes, and wild plums. And with even this enumeration the bill of fare is not exhausted. The Seminole, living in a perennial summer, is never at a loss when he seeks something, and something good, to eat. I have omitted from the above list honey and the sugar cane juice and syrup, nor have I referred to the purchases the Indians now and then make from the white man, of salt pork, wheat flour, coffee, and salt, and of the various canned delicacies, whose attractive labels catch their eyes."
http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/19155
Could it be the sweet fruits, maize, sugar cane syrup, honey, etc?
... or maybe something they were getting "now and then from the white man"?
|
| Sunday, January 4, 2009 at 21:38:00 mst
Comment ID: #32
Name: Michael Labeit
E-mail: logician169(at)yahoo.com
URL: http://unit-perspective.blogspot.com
Thanks to Rowland and Reed for your answers.
I ask about "a priori" because many of the so-called "continental rationalists" did not deny the necessity of the senses and simultaneously affirmed the legitimacy of "a priori." I don't believe many of them actually believed that knowledge could be possess in the complete absence of all sense perception. Leibniz, for one, recognized the importance of the senses in a quote I can't recall fully. This is why I think that few rationalists actually interpreted "a priori knowledge" to refer to knowledge gained in the complete absence of sense perception. I find it hard to believe that most continentals believed that knowledge could be gained by individuals with no eyes, ears, or feeling capacity.
IchorFigure,
From what I've heard, Hamas and Hezbollah use Katyusha rockets. You may have heard of them before; they were manufactured and used by the Soviets during WW2 against the German army on the infamous Eastern Front. Apparently, they have been exported far and wide.
|
| Sunday, January 4, 2009 at 21:56:07 mst
Comment ID: #33
Name: Michael Labeit
E-mail: logician169(at)yahoo.com
URL: http://unit-perspective.blogspot.com
Thanks to Rowland and Reed for your answers.
I ask about "a priori" because many of the so-called "continental rationalists" did not deny the necessity of the senses and simultaneously affirmed the legitimacy of "a priori." I don't believe many of them actually believed that knowledge could be possess in the complete absence of all sense perception. Leibniz, for one, recognized the importance of the senses in a quote I can't recall fully. This is why I think that few rationalists actually interpreted "a priori knowledge" to refer to knowledge gained in the complete absence of sense perception. I find it hard to believe that most continentals believed that knowledge could be gained by individuals with no eyes, ears, or feeling capacity.
IchorFigure,
From what I've heard, Hamas and Hezbollah use Katyusha rockets. You may have heard of them before; they were manufactured and used by the Soviets during WW2 against the German army on the infamous Eastern Front. Apparently, they have been exported far and wide.
|
| Sunday, January 4, 2009 at 23:09:12 mst
Comment ID: #34
Name: SarahG
E-mail: sarah.gelberg(at)att.net
Re: the Heller biography--the Random House description that includes "the rise and fall of the cult surrounding her" gives it away as at best a dishonest hatchet job as previously mentioned. Without reading the book itself, I do know, having interned at a publishing house years ago, that although such descriptions can play somewhat fast and loose with the content, it would be seriously dishonest to talk about the rise and fall of something that is debunked in the book.
I've heard and read enough about Rand and the supposed cult that I'm satisfied that there was no cult except in the minds of those Rand disassociated herself from. Anyone seeks to document said cult and does not come away with the conclusion that it didn't (and doesn't) exist is dishonest enough that I have no further interest in their work. If Heller has not done the necessary intellectual and investigative legwork to discover the truth, then in my opinion, her book is without value.
On the topic of objective biographies, Shoshana Milgram has a biography of Rand's pre-Atlas years in the works that I'm extremely excited about reading when it comes out.
Re: pro-Israel-ism among Objectivists: Israel is essentially a western (read: civilized) nation in the middle of a sea of barbarity, and for most of its history, it defended itself decisively and without compromise. For that, it has deserved all the American support it can get, and in my opinion, is the closest analogy to America--two nations deliberately founded for very specific philosophical purposes: freedom from force of all kinds. It was founded by educated westerners for the purpose of providing a homeland for persecuted jews. The fact that Israel has in recent years turned more towards "peace talks" with thugs who do not want peace and do not know what peace requires is in large part due to American pressure, because of our own shift in foreign policy away from principles and toward pragmatism. Yaron Brook has given several talks on the extensive similarities between Israel and America that bear listening to if you haven't already.
|
| Sunday, January 4, 2009 at 23:27:58 mst
Comment ID: #35
Name: SarahG
E-mail: sarah.gelberg(at)att.net
Another thought on O'ist support for Israel: a number of people have commented that there seem to be an unusually large percentage of people from Jewish backgrounds in Objectivism, including Rand herself. I don't think this is an accident--my father's family is Jewish and I've found that Jewish families in general tend to value education, reading, logic, and rationality in general more than families of other faiths. I remember growing up that there was always a strong respect for reading and thinking and literacy in general. This makes me think that it's a shorter intellectual "journey" to objectivism for Jews than for people raised in other faiths that are more "faith-based" for lack of a better word. Jewish-ness is much less tied up in what you personally believe than other faiths--you're much freer in general to believe whatever you want. (This obviously doesn't apply to Orthodox families, but there are far fewer of them, at least in my experience.) I know quite a number of Objectivists who are perfectly comfortable calling themselves Jews for this reason--it's much more of an ethnicity than a creed. Despite years of atheism and having attended synagogue exactly three times in my life (a bar mitzvah, a bat mitzvah, and a funeral), I've had complete strangers approach me on the street and start speaking Hebrew to me because they thought I "looked Jewish". I'm not sure what to make of that except that the qualities that tend to mark me as nominally "Jewish" may be the same that made me receptive to Objectivism.
|
| Monday, January 5, 2009 at 0:07:53 mst
Comment ID: #36
Name: Monica
E-mail: monicabeth10(at)gmail.com
URL: http://fa-rm.org
Brian -- thanks for looking that all up and typing it all out!
Very interesting. I really have no idea, your guess is as good as mine. heir diet definitely seems higher in sugar and starch than most of the other groups Price studied, to my recollection.
|
| Monday, January 5, 2009 at 6:52:06 mst
Comment ID: #37
Name: brian0918
Monica: actually I just copied and pasted from that link :)
|
| Monday, January 5, 2009 at 9:48:57 mst
Comment ID: #38
Name: Sascha Settegast
E-mail: sascha.settegast(at)gmx.de
Michael,
my dictionary of philosophical terms refers to a priori knowledge as knowledge independent from experience, i.e. sensory perception. And as far as I remember from my lectures and from reading Kant, that is exactly what is meant -- knowledge that does not need any reduction to observation for proof, but is certain and evident in and by itself, or logically deduced from such self-evidencies.
|
| Monday, January 5, 2009 at 13:15:37 mst
Comment ID: #39
Name: Jeff
In science, a priori knowledge refers to knowledge based upon previously validated principles. So, in this sense, the principle that force is proportional to acceleration, differing only by a constant called mass, has been validated from myriad experiments. So anything deduced from this principle would be a priori knowledge. If this deduction was checked with reference to new sense data, then it would be a posteriori knowledge.
I think, however, in the philosophic sense Sascha is right.
To KPO'M,
Thanks for the explanation regarding inflation and interest rates.
|
| Monday, January 5, 2009 at 13:23:40 mst
Comment ID: #40
Name: Freddy Ben-Zeev
E-mail: benzeev(at)comcast(dot)net
Michael Labeit, you wrote "Hamas has been firing ... for months". Actually the Hamas (and the other terrorist organizations in the Gaza strip) have been firing on and off into Israel for almost eight years already (since May 2001).
IchorFigure, the Hamas is using mostly homemade Qassam rockets with a range of about 10km (6 miles), and some Chinese made Grad rockets (supplied probably by Iran) with a range of about 40km (25 miles). About 800,000-1,000,000 Israeli civilians live in the range covered by these rockets from Gaza.
|
| Monday, January 5, 2009 at 22:00:46 mst
Comment ID: #41
Name: William H Stoddard
E-mail: whswhs(at)mindspring.com
URL: http://whswhs.livejournal.com/profile
Jeff,
"In science, a priori knowledge refers to knowledge based upon previously validated principles."
I've never seen that usage, and I've been editing scientific books and journals professionally for twenty years. In what field is the term "a priori" used in that way? I've only encountered it in philosophy, where it has a different meaning, as you note.
Bill Stoddard
|
| Tuesday, January 6, 2009 at 9:53:19 mst
Comment ID: #42
Name: Jeff
To William,
I should have qualified it, that is what I think it ought to be in science. I did not mean to say that is the currently accepted usage.
|
| Tuesday, January 6, 2009 at 11:06:12 mst
Comment ID: #43
Name: Amy Nasir
E-mail: amynasir(at)aol.com
URL: http://kindredist.com
Re: rrlv_frsh
"Taubes doesn't discuss digestive comfort, but other nutrition writers have pointed out (and my own experience has confirmed) that unrefined carbs can be a very effective alternative to meat if you suffer any digestive problems from meat. ...The veggies, in turn, help to alleviate any excess craving for carbs (refined or unrefined). I.e., vegetables and moderate fruit (eaten whole) nicely complement the more starchy (unrefined) carbohydrate foods. But again, Taubes' evidence and analysis show that high-fat/low-carb foods (animal products) are nutritionally ok, too (subject to freshness and other quality standards, as with all foods)."
Digestive comfort and the idea that veggies are a protein substitute are very interesting points. I'm curious if anyone has read Dr. Joel Fuhrman's books (Eat to Live and Eat for Health). Here are some ideas I took away from his work:
-- "Nutrient-dense" foods curb what we know as hunger (green leafy vegetables especially).
-- Phyto-chemicals and -nutrients are derived from plant foods and are most essential for health.
-- When on a bad diet, "hunger" is an effect of the body being starved of nutrients, and it is not truly hunger.
-- Eating grains (unrefined and refined), meats, fats, oils, sugars (not fruit) creates a toxic need to eat more.
-- Animal products are not the best source of nutrients (not sure what he thinks of high-quality meats and dairy).
-- Vegetables, nuts and beans contain enough protein needed for health (for example, a pound of broccoli has more protein than a pound of steak).
-- He does not promote veganism as such, and does not discourage meat, but he advises against it, and, as far as I understand, backs it up with scientific research.
-- Bottom line: as much cooked and uncooked green veggies, fruits, beans, and nuts (unprocessed) as you want, as long as you consume a pound of raw veggies and a pound of cooked veggies a day. Light on whole grains (not breads) and starchy veggies.
Fuhrman has successfully cured type-2 diabetic patients, where they no longer need medication. He has also treated overweight and obese patients very successfully (without bariatric surgery and having them keep the weight off), and helped others get rid of their allergy medication and asthma. I don't really know enough to say that he is right on everything (not sure about the connection between consuming phytochemicals and preventing cancer). And I do know that his ideas are controversial, in that a lot of people do not want to give up the pleasures of eating sugar, fat and lots of meat. But I have been on his plan (although not currently), lost weight and felt exceptionally good. I personally have a hard time staying away from the bad stuff, but during the time I was on his "Eat to Live" plan, I lost all desire for junk after two weeks. My sense of taste increased, and I was able to actually taste vegetables and really relish fruits. Further, my allergies went away, which included asthma.
Maybe I need to research this more, but I don't understand how, when eating animal fats, it won't create plaque, raise cholesterol, and process into lingering fat cells. Does saturated fat (for example, the type of milk, butter and meat that Diana describes) simply flow out of you? Am I misunderstanding this? I understand that refined carbohydrates easily turn into fat, but I don't understand this point on saturated fat. I understand that meats and dairy, free from hormones and added chemicals, are better for you, but I don't understand how it won't create fat in your body. If anyone can point me to an article, that would be great.
|
| Tuesday, January 6, 2009 at 11:35:06 mst
Comment ID: #44
Name: William H Stoddard
E-mail: whswhs(at)mindspring.com
URL: http://whswhs.livejournal.com/profile
Jeff,
I think that redefinition of "a priori" would be a bad idea. The term already has a clearly defined meaning in epistemology; giving it a different, though somewhat related meaning would decrease precision.
Consider, for example, the process where Auguste Comte's very clear definition of "altruism" (embodied, for example, in his criticizing Jesus for saying "love your neighbor as yourself" because he thought it was unacceptably selfish to love yourself at all, or to merely value other people on a par with yourself) got reinterpreted as encompassing any kind or generous actionâ€"and now, in biology, "reciprocal altruism" means that A does things that benefit B in response to B doing things that benefit A and vice versa, which is really a biological analog of "trade" and would imply that laissez-faire capitalism is altruistic in the biological sense.
Besides, we have well established terms in science for exactly what you're talking about. A "law" is a general statement of observed fact, encompassing past, present, and future facts, that has repeatedly been confirmed. A "theory" is an explanation of observed fact in terms of the behavior of underlying entities, from which further observed facts have been predicted, and that has repeatedly been confirmed by the anticipated observations actually being made (in contrast to a "hypothesis," which has been proposed but not confirmed). Scientists in general do not have a solid epistemological basis for their reliance on laws and theories, but they do rely on them in their actual work; they don't view them skeptically. It's only flakes such as creationists who treat "theory" as meaning "vague speculation" (very much as in the proposal of Kant to undermine the certainty of science to leave room for faith, or the earlier proposal of Sextus Empiricus to cast doubt on philosophy so that people would return to the gods).
What we need is a clear explanation of why laws and theories are valid, not a new name for laws and theories, and especially not a name that invites the misunderstanding of them as derived from "self-evident" postulates in the manner of Euclidean geometry. That model led philosophers astray from Plato to Spinoza.
I think we're talking about the same concept, but disagreeing about the most appropriate terminology for it.
|
| Tuesday, January 6, 2009 at 12:00:42 mst
Comment ID: #45
Name: Monica Hughes
E-mail: monicabeth10(at)gmail.com
URL: http://fa-rm.org
Amy, I'll chime in here -- but others with a greater understanding of human physiology might be able to do better.
I used to think the issue with vegan/veg diets was protein. Too often that's the main objection to vegan/veg diets. While that can be an issue, it's not the only one. The fat soluble vitamin issue is huge: vitamins A, D, K2. None of these vitamins are in plant foods, with the exception of K2 M7 form which is not optimal, and research has shown that most Americans are deficient in the latter two. K2 M7 is found in natto, a fermented soy product. The K2 M4 form, which is optimal, is found in some level in dairy and in high levels in liver. For instance, the RDA for vitamin D is only 400 IU. WAY TOO LOW. Most people in the winter should probably up intake to 4000 IU at least. It's very important for immune function, cancer prevention, heart and bone health, etc.
Vegans might not be deficient in vitamin A because of their ability to convert beta carotene to A, but this is highly variable on an individual basis and the conversion needs dietary fat to occur, to my understanding. Usually the conversion rate is only 10% in normal adults and children, the elderly, and those with diabetes don't make the conversion well at all. (Just FYI, the FDA allows fraudulent labeling of beta carotene as vitamin A on food products. If it's a vegetable product it has ZERO vitamin A.)
Meat is actually full of nutrients. The Inuit lived on a 100% meat diet and never suffered from any deficiencies or heart disease. Same with the Masai. It's not just a genetic adaptation of those tribes to meat. At least one European lived on the Inuit diet for 10 years and did just fine. Ex: the adrenal glands of animals are the richest source of vitamin C in nature, but if you're not on a grain-based diet your need for C and D go down (this is discussed more in Taubes). This is why whites on deficient grain-based diets so often suffered scurvy while the native Americans never did even though they never had any citrus. They would split up the adrenal glands for all the tribal members to have a tiny piece. A, D, and K2 are very high in liver -- all extremely important nutrients. EPA and DHA, two essential omega 3 fatty acids, and found in meat, particularly liver. The meat issue is really a strawman. The vitamin and nutrient contents are much higher in the organ meats, which no one eats anymore. These were the first parts, along with bone marrow and fatty muscle, to be consumed by primitive people. Natives threw muscle meat to the dogs. It was considered inferior.
On saturated fat. Most of the fat in red meat is actually monounsaturated -- the same exact type of fat found in olive oil! A good portion is red meat fat IS saturated, and it's true that there is no such thing as an essential saturated fat (your liver will just pump it out from carbohydrates if dietary intake is low). However, your body actually has enzymes to desaturate fats, but not to saturate them. Further, the body has a limited capability to actually store fat if carbohydrate intake is low, confirming your guess that this is why it's not a problem for people to have high dietary fat intake. This is because for fat to be stored, fatty acids need to be linked as a triglyceride in the fat cells. The molecule that does that is glycerol. The precursor to glycerol is glycerol phosphate. The precursor to that is glucose. That's why so long as carb intake remains low, it's difficult to store fat no matter how much fat you're eating. (It's also quite difficult to stuff yourself with nothing but fatty meat. Most people on an all meat diet spontaneously reduce their caloric intake because fat is so satiating.) I'm honestly not sure how that fat is metabolized and excreted, but the fact that the triglyceride levels of people on such diets remains quite low tells me that it's happening somehow. I don't know how. I'm not sure anyone actually does.
As far as atherosclerosis goes, atherosclerotic plaque is mostly a calcium like substance with some oxidized LDL cholesterol, and you oxidize your LDL and make it small and dense by eating carbohydrates. Eating a diet high in fat with moderate to low protein and carbohydrate will raise HDL (good cholesterol), lower triglycerides dramatically, and change the shape of LDL from the small dense dangerous form to a larger fluffy type. Vitamins D and K2 are very important at keeping calcium where it belongs (in the bones and teeth) and out of the arteries.
Eating saturated fat probably will raise your cholesterol because your HDL will rise and your LDL might, too. However, unless you get the specific test done to test for LDL size, total cholesterol tells you nothing. And as long as carbohydrate intake is not high, your triglyceride levels will drop. Study after study has shown this now. There is not a single decent study showing that saturated fat intake is a problem. Furthermore, it's completely antithetical to evolutionary logic. The burden of proof is on the people claiming that saturated fat intake is a problem.
Certain plants certainly are high in phytochemicals (notably leafy greens and berries) but I think you're being fed a hill of goods on protein in broccoli. A simple search of nutritiondata.com reveals that 100 grams of broccoli flowerets has three grams of protein. 100 grams of steak has 27 grams of protein.
I honestly don't know where Fuhrman is coming up with some of this stuff but he's written some rather absurd things about the Weston A Price Foundation in the past, a source I respect highly. So absurd that they're not even worth dealing with or trying to rebut. I have no doubt that some of his information is correct but I highly suspect he's biased against meat for non-scientific reasons. These could be emotional, ethical, and environmental. I really don't know.
It would be tough to point you to one single article on this. The following sources are excellent:
(book) Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes -- very long and intense
(book) Protein Power -- the information you desire is in this book in greater detail, and could probably be read in a sitting
proteinpower.com/drmike
wholehealthsource.blogspot.com
heartscanblog.blogspot.com
Best of luck! :)
|
| Tuesday, January 6, 2009 at 12:16:18 mst
Comment ID: #46
Name: Monica Hughes
E-mail: monicabeth10(at)gmail.com
URL: http://fa-rm.org
Just FYI, Amy, I believe when you say you've had a dramatic improvement in health cutting out processed junk, some grains, and sugar. That's huge. However, if you're insistent on not eating meat or liver, I'd get you some vitamin D3 and vitamin K2 supplements at vitacost.com :) The only other issues besides that, if you're not eating meat, are EPA and DHA (essential omega fatty acids. You might be able to get from flax oil but I'm skeptical of flax seed. None of our ancestors would have eaten flax seeds. Fish oil is the best source of both of these), and vitamin B12, to my knowledge.
Hope I'm not sounding too bossy. But there's just a ton of nutritional misinformation out there and I try to spread the news to those who are willing to listen. :)
|
| Tuesday, January 6, 2009 at 13:09:32 mst
Comment ID: #47
Name: Diana Hsieh
E-mail: diana(at)dianahsieh.com
URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog
Amy --
Like Monica, I can absolutely see that you would have some major health improvements on cutting out the processed junk (sugars, grains, modern vegetable oils) from your diet. That has made a big difference for me too -- but I'm also eating tons of meat and animal fats.
I'm not at all familiar with Furman's books or advice, but you summarize his view by saying:
"-- Eating grains (unrefined and refined), meats, fats, oils, sugars (not fruit) creates a toxic need to eat more."
I don't know what it means to speak of a "toxic need" for foods, so perhaps you can say more about what he means by that -- and why he says it. I worry that it's a kind of floating abstraction not supported by biology or experience.
Here's what I do know: High-carb foods are addictive. If a person's body is adjusted to using them as a source of food, it needs them to keep functioning properly. It cannot draw on fat stores for fuel. So one will feel seriously bad without fresh inputs of carbs as the blood sugar crashes. One will feel a desperate kind of hunger for another hit of sugars to keep going. That's well-established by the basic workings of insulin as the regulator of blood sugar. I've also verified it by testing my own blood sugar after eating various foods, comparing that to my feelings of hunger.
I know of no similar mechanism or effect with meats or animal fats. So what is that supposed to be? Please feel free to point me to an online article here; I'd really like to understand the case he's making.
I do think it's important to be choosy about the meats and fats you eat, but I'm doubtful -- based on my own personal experience and my reading of the science -- that meat and animal fats are harmful.
|
| Wednesday, January 7, 2009 at 9:28:12 mst
Comment ID: #48
Name: Amy Nasir
E-mail: amynasir(at)aol.com
URL: http://kindredist.com
Hi Monica and Diana - I want to thank you for your detailed responses.
So I'll definitely look into vitamins A, D, K2. To clarify, I'm not a vegan and I really enjoy meat, but I'm looking to learn more about nutrition and how it affects the body.
I don't expect to find the "Dr. Thomas Hendricks" of nutrition anytime soon. The field seems to be sketchy, and there is a lot more to test. (For instance, one source states that broccoli has 3 out of 100 grams of protein. Another source states that 47% of broccoli consists of protein.)
I have read two books by Fuhrman, and there is no trace of an environmentalist, religious, or animal rights agenda. In fact, he is OK with someone eating chicken on his program, not a lot of it though. And he states that there is no significant nutritional benefit to organic produce, and encourages getting fruits and veggies in any form available (except canned). However, Dr. Fuhrman's blog (run by someone else) has some conventional posts on environmentalism and does report favorably on government programs (like smoking bans). But he has never shown himself to be an animal rights activist.
Toxic hunger refers to feeling hungry after eating junk, in general. For instance, I ate Chinese food for dinner last night and I woke up feeling nauseous, weak and hungry. The high-sodium, high-fat food created lots of acid, etc. Fuhrman's idea is that, if eating this way all the time, your body craves nutrition, but your taste craves more salt/fat/sugar. Natural foods become unappetizing, and you try to satisfy yourself with delicious junk. As your body is not getting nutrition (phytonutrients), you constantly feel hungry, eat more and then gain weight. Personally, this is a vicious cycle for me as I am tired all the time when eating this way, and try to stimulate myself with more junk (chocolate, chips, caffeine). I end up drinking so much caffeine, I don't sleep well, and my energy level further decreases. Right now, I'm only doing about a cup of black tea a day.
(I don't understand how "your body craves nutrition," but empirically it makes sense in my case. Green leafy veggies always satiate me.)
Here is an article on Atkins by Fuhrman:
http://drfuhrman.com/library/article2.aspx
I would like to know if there is more to ketosis, and its negative effects. Fuhrman warns that it can damage the kidneys. I like the idea of eating quality meats and dairy, and eating lots of vegetables, as recommended by the Paleolithic diet. However, if a person eats carbohydrates (veggies, for instance) and meat with fat, how do you not gain weight? (Don't the carbohydrates trigger weight gain when eating fats?)
I had a biochemist (and Objectivist) friend, Dr. Bob Karvonen, read "Eat to Live.” He did research and wrote journal articles on cancer, and he wasn't able to find any bad science in the book, and completely agreed with it. (Sadly, he passed away last year.) He was extremely knowledgeable on nutrition. Well, I'll just need to keep researching, but will definitely eat more vegetables and fruit, and stay away from junk.
I'll also check out Good Calories, Bad Calories. I'd like to see how most fat in red meat is monounsaturated, and see how that works.
So thanks again for all the info!
|
| Wednesday, January 7, 2009 at 18:26:21 mst
Comment ID: #49
Name: Monica
E-mail: monicabeth10(at)gmail.com
URL: http://fa-rm.org
Amy,
"However, if a person eats carbohydrates (veggies, for instance) and meat with fat, how do you not gain weight? (Don't the carbohydrates trigger weight gain when eating fats?)"
It would. But there aren't that many carbs in leafy greens, broccoli, etc. I can eat huge salads and not be getting more than 30 grams per day. Most Americans are averaging 250 or more grams of carbs daily. Potatoes, bread, sweet potatoes, and fruit are high.
Ketosis isn't dangerous unless you're a Type I diabetic. Our ancestors were in this state a good deal of the time. The brain uses ketones for fuel.
Check out Protein Power and Whole Health Source, linked above. It's going to take you awhile to understand the mechanisms but if you put the time into it you'll see why the statements in Fuhrman's article on Atkins are wrong.
|
| Wednesday, January 7, 2009 at 20:35:54 mst
Comment ID: #50
Name: Diana Hsieh
E-mail: diana(at)dianahsieh.com
URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog
Amy -- I don't have time for a substantial reply right now, as the dissertation calls. But I do want to mention just one point, namely that the explanation of toxic hunger still seems completely floating to me. Without some kind of appeal to a biological mechanism -- like the relationship between insulin and blood sugar for carbs, I just don't see it as meaning anything in particular. Of course, that doesn't mean that the ultimate advice isn't good in many respects. Some of it fits what I've learned, and it clearly has done you some significant good. But, of course, you don't want to throw out the baby with the bathwater. So I'll be very interested in what you have to say about Taubes' GCBC, for example.
|
|
| Post Your Comment on "Sunday Open Thread " |
|
|
|
